Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Dick Cheney, Trey Grayson and the Fix endorsement hierarchy

Former Vice President Dick Cheney threw his endorsement behind Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson today, calling him the "real thing" in his Senate primary fight with ophthalmologist Rand Paul.

"The challenges posed by radical Islam and Al Qaeda are real and will be an ongoing threat to our domestic security for years to come," said Cheney. "We need Senators who truly understand this and who will work to strengthen our commitment to a strong national defense and to whom this is not just a political game."

Grayson, the establishment favorite in the May 18 primary, has struggled to overcome the grassroots energy and fundraising by Paul but, of late, has sought to turn the race into a referendum on past comments made by his opponent regarding the closure of Guantanamo Bay and Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. (Grayson is on television with an ad that seeks to raise questions about Paul's previous public statements on those issues.)

Is Cheney -- with apologies to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann -- a game changer? It's time to roll out our favorite feature: the Fix endorsement hierarchy.

First, a quick history. A few years back we came up with the idea of trying to quantify how much (or, in most cases, how little) endorsements in the context of campaigns mattered. With this -- as with all things -- we looked to Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons for guidance and adapted his "Levels of Losing" into the political context. The result? The Fix endorsement hierarchy.

Where the Cheney endorsement of Paul fits in the Fix hierarchy is in the eye of the beholder.

The Grayson forces would undoubtedly cast it as a symbolic endorsement, noting that Cheney is not only a well-known and well-liked figure within the Republican party but he also is the most prominent defender (and creator?) of the Bush Administration's policies on national security matters.

Seen through that lens, the Cheney endorsement tells undecided Republican primary voters that Grayson is the right choice to keep them and their families safe, a potentially powerful message in the coming primary -- if true.

The Paul team, on the other hand, would likely cast the Cheney endorsement as an out-of-state statewide endorsement -- a far less powerful and influential support-throwing move.

Under that line of thinking, Cheney, while well known nationally, doesn't vote in Kentucky nor does he have any special connection to the people of Kentucky so while he may draw some headlines for Grayson, he won't ultimately affect any votes.

One point that may argue for the Paul point-of-view is Cheney's recent endorsement track record.

Cheney's endorsement did next to nothing to help Hutchison and, in fact, might have hurt her at the margins as it played into Perry's central argument -- that the Senator was controlled by Washington elites while he was answerable only to the people of Texas.

Given that recent history, we tend to see Cheney as fitting best into the out-of-state statewide endorsement. That means that while Cheney's endorsement is nice for Grayson to have -- and may well earn him a second look by some Kentucky Republican primary voters -- it's not likely to be determinative come May 18.

37thand0street
ALL CAPS ????
GROW UP ????
Denying that the GOP and the Tea Partiers are being vilified without cause is useless. They have already showed their ugly side and will never be taken seriously after reacting they way they have. The two "groups" have set back conservatism by years and I personally am ashamed.

I want to know who the repukicans were on the balconies of the state house, waving the banners encouraging the teabonkers on.
Why hasn't any media provided us with that info? It was probably the same ones in the chambers raucously encouraging the deplorable actions of their compadres. The
repukican congressmen and senators might as well put on their sneakers and join the mob, they certainly don't deserve to be in our halls of justice.

I want to know who the repukicans were on the balconies of the state house, waving the banners encouraging the teabonkers on.
Why hasn't any media provided us with that info? It was probably the same ones in the chambers raucously encouraging the deplorable actions of their compadres. The
repukican congressmen and senators might as well put on their sneakers and join the mob, they certainly don't deserve to be in our halls of justice.

37-the anger of the Teabaggers is due to the likes of Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck.
What they are doing is throwing gasoline on an alreday raging fire of hate, and all
the degenerative elements of our society are joining the ranks and fanning the flames. This will become an inferno, it is
happening as we speak. The once legitimate
group of folks seeking change has morfed into a mob of madness. They no longer have any actual relevance in this whole picture, other than a force to be feared.
The GOP is giddy with idiot joy, poor losers, unspeakably vile racist slime.

Any endorsement by Cheney, Rove, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, or Teabaggers will result in defeats of the endorsed candidates such as Hutchinson. So, bring on your lousy endorsements, most of America welcomes the results. The candidates who accept these endorsements are pissing up a rope.

Cheney endorsed KBH in the Texas Primary, that didn't work out very well. I suspect that folks like JD Hayworth and Paul have serious prospects in this quirky election cycle(which is precisely why McCain is now in panic mode), especially Paul who has a rock star like quality from his daddy's recognition.

ok what are these faux sexual slurs? Yesterday I called Palin an intellectual lightweight and pointed to her writing crib notes on her hand and repetitive references to VP Biden as O'Biden as examples. You claim Ds hate her when most of us in reality are her biggest fans and gitty with excitement over her most certain GOP nomination in 2012. I also posted that I would contribute to a Palin/Bachman ticket,I am serious about that and that is a sexual slur?
Again what is it about the inappropriateness of spitting on US Congressmen and yelling the N word at a Civil Rights Leader that you don't understand. Your utter silence and moral rationalizing is truly amazing.

more faux outrage, moral equivalency and spamming by 37th. Apparently use of the N word against a US Congressman and Civil Rights leader is again in vogue with the radical right. What is next, hoses or attack dogs? You do know something about America's racial history, right? Welcome back GOP radicals to the 1950s. Racial and Homophobic slurs and calls for radical violence are now a new tactic by GOP leadership. That is the face of today's GOP. Sreaming fire in a crowded theatre is now acceptable behavior to the radical right aka the GOP. What is tragic is that they are clueless that these constant outbursts have real life consequences that will not stop until g++ forbid someone gets hurt. Is that what they are hoping for?

The liberals and the democrats have been hurling SEXUAL SLURS at the Tea Party Movement for months - now all of a sudden, they are saying that some words are out-of-bounds - while the SEXUAL SLURS ARE STILL IN BOUNDS ???

The idea that the democrats have been civil toward the Tea Party Movement is simply not the case.

Even on this blog, SEXUAL SLURS have been used on almost a daily basis - sometimes several times - despite other bloggers pointing out the contradictions.

So which is it ???

When the democrats want to attack, it is OK for them to use SEXUAL SLURS, but when the other side wants to get angry, they are instantly out of bounds????

The anger of the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT has been caused by Obama going back on his pledges to be bipartisan.

If Obama had taken the difficult road of bipartisan - WHICH HE HAD PLEDGED TO DO NUMEROUS TIMES OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, - we would have a vastly different situation here.

Broadwayjoe - case in point - is he working for OFA or the DNC - and has he been using these SEXUAL SLURS on this blog???

The democrats are the ones who have abandoned all civil bahavior - now they claim they don't like it when it comes back to them.

Journalists are starting to connect the dots between the Tea Baggers and...the Klan:

"The Tea-Partiers are the direct decendants of Duke, except in visible masses. They are an extension of the Klan, which gained numbers directly after slaves earned their freedom. They are racist, homophobic, ignorant trash trying to masquerade as responsible citizens. Some of them might feel this is a valid "movement." I don't think it's valid, but I will agree it's a movement alright. A bowel movement.

Characterize it any way you want, republicans. Try to recruit as much as you want, John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann. The smarter of us know exactly what you are doing. You're race bating for political gain. Is there anything more ugly and grotesque than that?"

"What would the Fix headline have been the day after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?"

Stop scaring me. My whole "narrative"* is we went ahead, we got better, no one would spit on black people, let alone elected officials and scream N!igger! I thought we were done with Louise Day Hicks in the North. In 1967, she just might have been Boston's Mayor.

*narrative is a word we use to create quote marks around what we are saying, a signal to anyone: you should think we are serious, funny, profound, or anything else de jour.

We know this space took great pains to avoid mention of the tea party hate fest, the big NEWS story discussed in about six articles written by Fix coworkers (see, e.g., Robinson, Milbank), but we have to respond to the fake 37.
_________________

"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-M.D.) had been spit on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-G.A.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "fag___t," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn told the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus.""

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT OBAMA GOING AROUND THE COUNTRY FOR TWO YEARS TELLING EVERYONE HOW BIPARTISAN HE IS GOING TO BE - ONLY TO TAKE A SHARP TURN TO THE LEFT AS SOON AS HE COULD FIND A FLIMSEY EXCUSE.

A day or so after this space posted the false narrative that polls show Americans don't support health care reform (yeah, like they don't support commie plots like medicare, clean air and water regulations, public schools, and national parks), we're glad to post some fact-based GOOD news.
__________

"More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill."

We suspect the number would be around 70 percent (where it, in fact, was (WITH the public option) before the Big Pharma/Bagger campaign against reform) if the poll questions were legit (Do you support a health care reform bill if it will bankrupt the U.S. for all time?) and those polled first knew what was it the bill. Kinda helps.

____

A scary William Bennett-style "thought experiment:

What would the Fix headline have been the day after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? What would have been the Fix "news and analysis"?

"On Saturday, the vile epithet that is euphemistically called "the N-word" had been hurled at Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement, as he walked past the Tea Party crowd. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), who is also black, was spat upon. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, was insulted with what I guess should be called "the F-word."

Most Republican opponents of health-care reform had the decency -- and the political sense -- to disavow the racist and homophobic attacks. Incredibly, some did not. Rep. Devin Nunes of California told C-SPAN: "Yeah, well I think that when you use totalitarian tactics, people, you know, begin to act crazy. I think, you know, there's people that have every right to say what they want. If they want to smear someone, they can do it." And Rep. Steve King of Iowa airily dismissed the incident: "I just don't think it's anything. . . . There are a lot of places in this country that I couldn't walk through. I wouldn't live to get to the other end of it." "
________________

Maybe Cleaver saved some of the bigots' spit for your examination, 37. I'd be glad to furnish another picture of Dale Robertson proudly standing with the baggers' iconic banner, their famous n-word sign.

Cheney admits to authorizing waterboarding of prisoners. Waterboarding is torture as defined by International Law that the USA proscribes to and has acted on. The USA administered the death penalty for the war crime of waterboarding.

Cheney's attempts at increasing National Security FAILED. One badly run war and one phony war has contributed to the economic mess we find ourselves in and we are, as a result, significantly less secure.

If Republicans want to run as The Torture Party, go ahead. Now that the Tea-baggers have started terrorist attacks on congressional family members, maybe they want to endorsements from them too.

Or is it a call to support the military industrial complex? Is anyone looking at where Grayson is getting his campaign contributions?

"The challenges posed by radical Islam and Al Qaeda are real and will be an ongoing threat to our domestic security for years to come," said Cheney. "We need Senators who truly understand this and who will work to strengthen our commitment to a strong national defense and to whom this is not just a political game."

""The challenges posed by radical Islam and Al Qaeda are real and will be an ongoing threat to our domestic security for years to come," said Cheney. "We need Senators who truly understand this and who will work to strengthen our commitment to a strong national defense and to whom this is not just a political game.""

While in DC on another matter, I had to work my way through the mob that stood between the House office buildings and the Capitol, a thoroughfare for those choosing to walk outside from their office to the House in order to participate in the debate. (So, a Congressperson being there not only isn't unusual, but I saw about 30 making their way over.)

And, I was spit by one protester after begin surrounded when I was simply TALKING with someone who held a "Health Reform Now" sign. So, I have no problem believing that some, maybe even most based on my experience, in that crowd would shout racist terms or spit on Members of Congress.

Symbolic endorsement, I have to say. The Bush administration is still very popular among Republicans and the underlings might even be more so. If Republicans dislike Bush, it's not so much for his policies as for his political toxicity. They might not hold Cheney responsible for that.

And I think Kentucky is a poor state for libertarianism. Kentucky is more social conservative than economic conservative. Yeah, when you are one, you will co-opt the other in some way, but libertarians are more socially liberal which might hurt Paul (not that I know anything about Paul's views specifically. I'm just generalizing on libertarianism in general)

For a Republican primary, I think it's probably a net positive to get Cheney's endorsement. At least for the primary. It could easily bite him in the ass in the general. The country doesn't love Bush as much as the Republicans.

• How many thousands of Americans are silently attacked, tortured, impaired, "slow killed" each day by this covert weapon system camouflaged by cellular "communications" -- and how many operatives, agents and law enforcement officers are "authorized" to use it?

WHEN WILL CONGRESS, HIGH OBAMA OFFICIALS DEMAND THE TRUTH?

Where is the D.O.J. Civil Rights Division investigation, the congressional hearings, into this federal-local torture matrix?

Tough call. The national security Repubs will value the Cheney endorsement more than the tea types will. So who's voting in the KY primary? How high is national security on their agenda, when compared to, say, the social/commun/fasc/terror-ist takeover of baseball, motherhood and apple pie?

More to the point, the tea people are as mad at the Bush admin for not being true fiscal conservatives as they are at the Dems (or so they say). Given that, if the tea types are the new base of the GOP, Cheney's endorsement is borderline pariah - and that's in the primary, nevermind the general.

If Paul wins the primary, can you imagine the attack ads in the general? "This guy is so nutty, even Dick Cheney endorsed his opponent."